From owner-freebsd-stable Tue May 4 15:33:27 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from angel.double-barrel.be (mail.double-barrel.be [194.7.102.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7094A15684; Tue, 4 May 1999 15:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mvergall@ws3.double-barrel.be) Received: from ws3.double-barrel.be (ws3.double-barrel.be [194.7.102.30]) by angel.double-barrel.be (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA08963; Wed, 5 May 1999 00:32:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (mvergall@localhost) by ws3.double-barrel.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA06083; Wed, 5 May 1999 00:32:13 +0200 Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 00:32:13 +0200 (CEST) From: "Michael C. Vergallen" To: Tim Priebe Cc: Greg Quinlan , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.1 remote reboot exploit (fwd) In-Reply-To: <372F7025.7081@iafrica.com.na> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I don't see how this can be a exploit if you have /etc/hosts.deny and /etc/hosts.allow set up correctly and dont allow rcmd commands on your system..I tried to remotely reboot my ftp server here and no it does not work on that machine and I also tried on my gateway machine and no luck there either. Now I will try my print server but I first have to upgrade that box to 3.1 ...However on my network I see more and more poeple scanning with a portscanner so I supose I better keep a look out for strange items in my log files. Michael --- Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike, Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/ B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/ Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976 On Wed, 5 May 1999, Tim Priebe wrote: > I saw such behavior Sunday when trying to implement a new firewall. The > system would repeatedly panic with a trap 12. This would happen > immediatelly after the login prompt appeared after the previous panic. > The system would be stable, if I removed the first ethernet cable, plug > the cable back in, and a short while later it would start over again. > It was late, and we had to get the system working again, so we restored > to the previous system. I have some information logged for packets at > the time. I will check this and try to reproduce after I finish the > course I am on this week. > > Tim. > > Greg Quinlan wrote: > > > > This sounds so.. so very familiar!! > > > > I have been the target of exploits before...... > > > > The exact same thing I have been experiencing........but not for about 5 > > days now! > > > > I'm not convinced its a pure exploit.. (i.e. a program specifically written > > for the purpose) > > > > Greg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karl Denninger > > To: chris@calldei.com ; Jordan K. Hubbard > > > > Cc: Mike Smith ; Seth ; > > freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG ; > > security@FreeBSD.ORG ; jamie@exodus.net > > > > Date: 04 May 1999 05:20 > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.1 remote reboot exploit (fwd) > > > > >On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 10:51:32PM -0500, Chris Costello wrote: > > >> On Mon, May 3, 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > >> > > I have to say that Jamie really let us down by not running a raw > > >> > > tcpdump alongside the second targetted machine here. Any chance of > > >> > > provoking these people into "demonstrating" the exploit on a machine, > > >> > > while another connected to the same wire is running > > >> > > > >> > I'd say he or whomever first reported this to bugtraq let us down even > > >> > more by releasing an "advisory" in such an unknown and unverifyable > > >> > state. By doing so, all they've done is hand ammunition to the FUD > > >> > corps and given us no reasonable chance to respond since the advisory > > >> > > >> I get the impression that that was the whole point of the > > >> bugtraq post, to give us more grief. > > > > > >Ding! > > > > > >Give that man a cigar. > > > > > >Anyone who saw this done to one machine and didn't *immediately* configure > > >machine #2 to trap and trace on the second instance deserves raspberries - > > >at a minimum. > > > > > >Its one thing to have it done "anyonmously" (among other things you might > > >not be there when it goes "boom" under those conditions!) Its another to > > >have it done under controlled conditions and neither get an explanantion > > >OR trap the condition that caused it yourself with a tcpdump trace. > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > >Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Web: fathers.denninger.net > > >I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give > > >up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization. > > > > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > >with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message